Pathological exaggerators caught on “death threats”: How 11 rude emails became a media blitz
UPDATE2: 5/3/12 Simon Turnill reports that there’s a new story in the Australian saying that the police were never contacted, indicating that the ANU didn’t even take the non-existent “death threats” seriously enough to even report it! David Appell looks even dumber now.
WUWT readers may recall the uproar in the alarmosphere and media over this…well, just like Peter Gleick and Fakegate, this was another “manufactured” claim against skeptics with not a single document to back it up then. An adjudicate looking at the actual documents, has ruled they “do not contain threats to kill”.
In Australia the ABC reported the “scare” this way in June 2011:
Death threats sent to top climate scientists
Several of Australia’s top climate change scientists at the Australian National University have been subjected to a campaign of death threats, forcing the university to tighten security.
Several of the scientists in Canberra have been moved to a more secure location after receiving the threats over their research.
Vice-chancellor Professor Ian Young says the scientists have received large numbers of emails, including death threats and abusive phone calls, threatening to attack the academics in the street if they continue their research.
He says it has been happening for the past six months and the situation has worsened significantly in recent weeks. (source)
As did Nature, and The Guardian in full alarm mode bloviation.
I get word from Simon at Australian Climate Madness of this breaking development. It seems the “death threats” against climate scientists are nothing but hot air, and alarmist David Appell is now a confirmed idiot for taking me to task (and citing my deceased mother in his argument) over my not getting too excited about the whole trumped up story.
Watts Still Denying the Death Threats – Quark Soup by David Appell
This claim stunk from the beginning for lack of credible evidence, as I pointed out then when I told Appell to take his concerns elsewhere* and tossed his sorry butt off WUWT for good.
Appell has this on his website:
Rule #1: You can never ask too many questions.
But apparently Appell didn’t follow his own advice in this incident and go to the length of FOIA questions that Simon did. Give Simon a round of applause and Appell some well deserved raspberries. – Anthony
============================================================
Simon writes:
Christian Kerr at The Australian reports on my ongoing efforts to obtain, from the Australian National University, copies of emails to climate scientists containing death threats, and a recent Privacy Commissioner ruling that shows that none of the documents produced contain such threats:
Climate scientists’ claims of email death threats go up in smoke
CLAIMS that some of Australia’s leading climate change scientists were subjected to death threats as part of a vicious and unrelenting email campaign have been debunked by the Privacy Commissioner.
Timothy Pilgrim was called in to adjudicate on a Freedom of Information application in relation to Fairfax and ABC reports last June alleging that Australian National University climate change researchers were facing the ongoing campaign and had been moved to “more secure buildings” following explicit threats.
In a six-page ruling made last week, Mr Pilgrim found that 10 of 11 documents, all emails, “do not contain threats to kill” and the other “could be regarded as intimidating and at its highest perhaps alluding to a threat”.
Chief Scientist Ian Chubb, who was the ANU’s vice-chancellor at the time, last night admitted he did not have any recollection of reading the emails before relocating the university’s researchers. “I don’t believe I did,” Professor Chubb told The Australian.
Instead, he said he had responded “as a responsible employer”.
“I had a bunch of concerned staff and they thought they should be moved to a more secure place so I moved them,” he said.
“With hindsight, we can say nobody chased them down. What do you do?”
The FOI application was lodged by Sydney climate blogger Simon Turnill. It requested the release of “emails, transcript of telephone calls or messages that contained abuse, threats to kill and/or threats of harm to the recipient” sent to six staff members of the ANU’s Climate Change Institute. His request resulted in the discovery of the 11 documents.
The university refused to release the documents, citing a clause in the Freedom of Information Act that exempts documents that “would, or could reasonably be expected to … endanger the life or physical safety of any person” from disclosure.
Mr Turnill appealed against the decision.
In response to the appeal, Mr Pilgrim found 10 documents did not contain threats to kill or threats of harm.
Mr Pilgrim said of the 11th, a further email offering an account of an exchange that occurred at an off-campus event sponsored by members of the Climate Change Institute and other bodies: “I consider the danger to life or physical safety in this case to be only a possibility, not a real chance.”
…
Finally, after a long wait, on 26 April 2012, the Privacy Commissioner ruled in my favour. The decision is available here. In respect of danger to life, the Commissioner wrote:
15. The question is how release of the documents could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any person. In other words, the question is whether release of the documents could be expected to create the risk, not whether the documents reflect an existing credible threat. Even if the threats were highly credible, the question would be how release of the documents would add to the expected threat.
16. In my view, there is a risk that release of the documents could lead to further insulting or offensive communication being directed at ANU personnel or expressed through social media. However, there is no evidence to suggest disclosure would, or could reasonably be expected to, endanger the life or physical safety of any person.
17. Therefore I consider that the 11 documents are not exempt under s 37(1)(c).
===========================================================
Full story here: http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2012/05/anu-death-threat-claims-debunked-the-australian/
ADDED – Here’s Appell, calling us all demented because we aren’t alarmed:
And this comment on WUWT:
David Appell
david.appell@xxxx
The death threats against climate scientists have been widely acknowledged by several of them and reported on by many journalists. The Guardian, in particular, has seen them. One scientist had a dead animal dumped on their doorstep, according to ABC News. Some of the threats have been reported to the FBI.
It is pernicious, obnoxious, and dangerous for people here, especially Anthony Watts, to claim that these threats exist do not exist. It is of a kind, and only a step from being complicit.
And here, he uses an ugly caricature of me to make his point:
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2011/07/looks-like-watts-is-having-second.html
He writes:
Denying these threats as Watts and his minions (microWatts?) do is despicable, and it is dangerous. They have taken this discussion into a very dangerous place, and innocent people are being targeted simply because they are doing their jobs as best they can and have come to a scientific conclusion with implications that some people do not like. It’s craven, truly craven.
* I can’t publish what I really want to say about David Appell, lest I violate my own blog policy.
that’s awesome. but mann still loves to claim that no climate scientist has ever been convicted of any improper behavior, having been totally exonerated by ever so many investigations.
we still need a head on a post – via criminal prosecution.
they lost their poley bears, glaciers, sinking islands – and they need to lose that last talking point about ‘pure hearted innocence’.
Nick Stokes points out that the AFP have said that “they are aware of it” as if this is somhow cogent to the story. Well the AFP would be unlikely not to be “aware of it” since the University issued a press release. There is no evidence that anyone “reported” it to the AFP.
At the end of the day most of today’s ‘climate science’ boils down to grant addiction.
The need to preserve, or increase, these grants to preserve comfortable lifestyles is the paramount consideration.
Perhaps we need to be a little sympathetic – who on Earth will employ a ‘climate scientist’ once there is general acceptance that CAGW is just an elaborate hoax?
So grant addiction means routinely fixing data and twisting conclusions to make them more scary, thus demonstrating more ‘research’ etc is needed. An additional strategy, this time to try and gain public sympathy, is to keep repeating the big lies, such as:
1. Climate sceptics are well-funded.
2. Climate sceptics serve the interests of, and are paid by, Big Oil.
3. Climate sceptics don’t understand science.
4. Climate sceptics are ignorant of the facts and not worth debating.
5. Climate sceptics are death threat issuing nutters.
6. The polar bears are dying out.
7. The ice caps are disappearing.
8. Carbon dioxide is an evil gas which will kill hundreds of millions of people.
9. Sea levels are rising at a catastrophic rate.
10. Extreme weather events, such as hurricanes and tornadoes are becoming increasingly common.
The big lies are regularly rolled out by the ABC, BBC, the Guardian and other left-leaning media organisations. In fact, the situation has now become so bad that all employees of these organisations know their jobs are under very real threat if they accurately report sceptical arguments or fail to actively promote the beliefs of climate alarmists.
Keith Minto says: May 2, 2012 at 11:51 pm
“One force, the AFP, and, I live here.”
Thanks for bringing me up to date. I’m an ANU alumnus myself, but alas, it was pre-1979. However, I see that the ACT Policing still functions as an entity under the Chief Police Officer of the Australian Capital Territory. And it’s still true that “The AFP provides protective security for (and on behalf of) the Australian Government”, and that’s distinct from ACT Policing. So I’m not surprised that when Simon went to the “ACT police media office” he got an answer different from what the AFP said.
Wow, this article sure made my day. Now all we need before RIO is to have Mann’s emails released as well. We all know because of the huge expense and huge amount of time and effort put into not releasing them that there is something in there that they don’t want us to see.
Christmas would come early from that with truth winning in the end. Maybe this time the New York Times will actually publish these emails since they were released through FOIA like Sarah Palin’s were. Or will that newspaper be hypocritical and not publish them? I won’t be holding my breath.
But I think by now most of us sceptics only believe what warmists can prove to us. They have earned the Missouri State motto with their behavior.
Show me the proof, or shut up in other words. That goes for you Mr. Stokes as well. I trust you as well as any warmist zero without proof. [snip] defending them like this for so long kind of gives reasonable people that kind of hang-up about trusting your word. Trust has to be earned.
Ah yes, the infinity argument. “If this will save one life, prevent one injustice… it is a justified response” Unless of course, the insults and threats are really aimed at the poor folks trying to follow good science and ask questions. Then it goes completely ignored by the Stokes of the world.
And the reason this “death threat” syndrome was blasted all through every media that would listen and publish was? To save even one life or prevent one injury or death? Or to try and frame CAGW questioners as evil?
Sorry, but that argument doesn’t even rate a bag of dog doo-doo at the discounted dog park. That fluff has got to be the sorriest argument any truely pitiful CAGW internet troll has managed to drop into a thread.
“An account of an exchange at an off-campus event…” In other words a third hand email description after the fact by who? Describing what? in their own words?
Of course we can expect this person describing this “…danger to life or physical safety in this case to be only a possibility…” event to have been absolutely honest and didn’t inflate or exaggerate any of the event or individual actions? Before they went crying to their boss about security and calling the press about “death threats”.
They deserve to share your bag of dog doo-doo with you.
Nick Stokes says:
May 2, 2012 at 6:08 pm
Well, I think even just one threat, even if possibly veiled, demands a precautionary response
Agreed, Nick, this does indeed look like a classic Post Normal Science “might-could” threat which finally provides perfect grist for your own Precautionary Principle’s mighty mill! Therefore, according to its precept, let us further demand together that all mainstream Climate Scientists be safely sealed away from this possible threat forever, and likewise the rest of the World from them! “Before it’s too late!”
So, the police were aware of the emails but, the emails were untraceable or something?
This just gets dumber and dumber. I have come to the conclusion that these people are not smart enough to stop lying. This is like an episode of “Bait Car”.
Sounds like Apellgate, or to use the Cockney vernacular, David Apell has done a “Christina”.
“I had a bunch of concerned staff and they thought they should be moved to a more secure place so I moved them,” he said.
When this came out earlier I’m sure I read that this wasn’t true – that these people had been moved in a general reorganisation which included something like scanned cards for security.
Dear Nick,
there was once a time, as I recall, when I would read your comments here and, I believe, at Lucia’s with some interest. Whilst I rarely found myself nodding in agreement with anything you said, I did often find your comments thought provoking, which would lead me on to other reading.
For some time now, however, there has been an air of desperation about your contributions. You will go to any lengths, invoke infinite epicycles and squirm through twisted contortions to support “The Cause”.
You, like your Cause, haemorrhage credibility with every utterance.
The more you say, the more you lose.
Keep it up!
If I were a vice-chancellor and several of my staff lied to me about receiving death threats, I’d be pretty quick to ensure appropriate disciplinary procedures were actioned. Has anyone been sacked yet?
But if I was a member of staff and decided to tell my boss I’d received death threats, even though i hadn’t, I’d have been pretty worried that he/she would want to see them. If several others also did the same they must have been pretty sure they wouldn’t have asked to show them. Why would they have been so confident?
Layne Blanchard says:
May 2, 2012 at 6:51 pm
Dead Animals? A horse’s head?… or did a bird decide to expire on the porch?
—————————————————————————————————–
Did anyone chase it up with the faculty cat?
Those moggies have got a climate agenda of their own, they always want the warmest spot.
(FYI to David Appell – I’m not anyones ‘minion’, your attitude is also part of the problem)
I agree I’ve yet to see any ‘actual, credible death threats’
even Stan Lippermanns (rude, crude, abusive and vile) to Katie, would not qualify… (he even Rang Peter Gleick up)
BUT. My point, is lets just acknowledge there are nutter out there, ANY issue, in the media, especially controversial ones, results in rude, crude, abusive, emails being sent to people.
People experienced in the media allready, ie Morano, Anthony Watts shrug shoulders, and just deal with it.. And as we have seen other use them, and conflate them into ‘nasty sceptics’ etc..
YET, my point why can we not just disassociate ourselve, from rude, crude and abusive emails.. I want to have an adult civil conversation with climate scientsits, or anybody, including Leo Hickmann, Katie Hayhoe and even Peter Glieck, Roger Harrabin, Mark Lynas (had lunch with him last week) to get to know them and try to dispell pre-conceptions with each other..
Any environemnt where abuse is being thrown around (even if not actual death threats – does that make merly rude, vile, crude abusive ok?) make it very difficult to do so. And I can even see why Peter Gleick was so grumpy(very wrong, misguided that he is ), it’s a vicious polarisation cycle of disengagement.
So why is it so hard to condemm any abuse, and say we just want a civil conversation..
Because ‘some’ on the other side are abusive, or manipulate the media.. does that justify it..
Why not expect and emand civility, and the people that can’t be civil will be shown for the extremist they are, whoever they are, whatever side, they are on..
People can change their minds , if they respect you and get to know you..
I’ve spoken to BOTH Leo Hickman and James Delingpole, and BOTH were concerned about abuse they had recieved… (from a personal and family perspective) I’ve also disagreed with Morano about his style (and JAmes) , but I do understand it, as they are operating in a medi/political environment, which is very robust, and people just expect and deal with the nutters..
Most scientists, would hide away than get their name in the media (and I don’t blame them)
Don’t use this as a story to beat scientists up with, what has any scientist in the UK, or USA got to do with this story, or even the majority of scientists in Aus.. making out that no-ones gets rude emails or condoning them by silence, just makes sceptics look very partisan in the eyes of scientist, and why wouldn’t they think, well i get rude nasty emails, these guys won’t say it isn’t on, why should I talk to any sceptics at all. Human Nature..
I don’t want anyone I know (even a little) to get any abuse. (and they do)And that is speaking as some one who has a very good friend with hundreds of mentions (non controversial) in the climategate emails and they get silly stuff, from ‘sceptics’, ‘environmentalists’ alike.
The death threats against climate scientists have been widely acknowledged by several of them and reported on by many journalists. The Guardian, in particular, has seen them. One scientist had a dead animal dumped on their doorstep, according to ABC News. Some of the threats have been reported to the FBI.
So the threats were proved real by consensus. Nothing new there, then!
Do the Warmistas ever stop lying?
I like “microWatts” though. I might get a T-shirt.
Wow. I wish I had a boss like that. You get an office move to better accommodation by saying that you’re scared of death threats? And he doesn’t even want to see them? Or ask the relevant security and/or cops for their opinion and advice?
You can make many locations more secure by simple cheap measures, like badge locks on doors, better lighting in the car parsk, buddy system for those working late, increased vigilance among all present on site etc etc etc..
But to authorise an office move is a tremendous upheaval for such flimsy (non-existent) evidence. It takes day to organise and a long tome to settle down afterwards.
I hope (but don’t expect) that the guy in question looks at more compelling evidence before issuing his opinion about matters within his own academic field.
If not, I have this great bridge I’d like to sell him….London -based, only one careful owner, never used for racing or rallying, buyer collects, great discount for quick cash sale.
Who is threatening whom
The Rise of Eco Fascism
http://www.energytribune.com//articles.cfm/10465/The-Rise-of-Eco-Fascism
http://youtu.be/JfnddMpzPsM
We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work. And we be many, but you be few.
Anthony, I hope when summer finally arrives and the warmth (much wanted here in wet blighty), you walk down the street with a skip in your step and a whistle on your lips, head held high.
As for the warmistas it’s just lie after lie after lie after lie after lie after……………they really are useful idiots aren’t they.
Anthony,
you should demand a public apology from the fool,you have been found to be telling the truth and he’s been caught lying or omitting the truth, would suggest you email him with your thoughts and suugest he could come on your site and say sorry…..yeah i know the last bit is a dreamers dream but?
keep up the good work,yet another lie exposed.perhaps you could have a climate lyers page for all the untruths that are exposed, a bit like the climate fail page
REPLY: I did, I sent him an email yesterday, which my server log shows was received. He of course ignored it, much like he ignores the lack of death threat evidence. – Anthony
At the Nature blog post http://blogs.nature.com/news/2011/06/australian_climate_scientists.html I commented:
@Brian Owens, James Mitchell Crow: you should retract this story in a new blog post. See “BREAKING: “Death threats” against Australian climate scientists turn out to be nothing but hype and hot air”
I also gave the URL and 23 lines quoted from The Australian.
After about 12 hours, my comment was removed from Nature.
@ur momisugly Nick Stokes, aka “The Black Knight”, mate keep it up, Anthony hasn’t defeated you, ” Its just a flesh wound.”
“I had a bunch of concerned staff and they thought they should be moved to a more secure place so I moved them,” he [Ian Chubb] said.
“With hindsight, we can say nobody chased them down. What do you do?”
1) Demand the resignations of the ‘leading climate change scientists’ who lied to you – (This is necessary to protect the integrity of climate science)
2) Make public announcement to the effect that these scientists are prone to gross exaggeration and their work cannot be relied upon.
3) Submit your own resignation for gross incompetence. (Most employers would immediately investigate and contact police when advised by employees that they had received death threats. At the very least they would recall reading emails relating to such threats)
ANU please note: The saying any publicity is good publicity does not necessarily apply to universities.
“Who knew it was such a tough and dangerous job being a climate scientist?”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzMAM7231Ow feature=player_embedded